@Rapappport rhodes and gibson were the exceptions, not the rules. rhodes, for all his prowess in 54, was never good enough for a full time job. gibson was hurt and was used as a last resort. bonds was healthy. had the rest of the team been able to hit the ball, bonds would have been able to capitalize
In that last Series game, it seemed that the Giants had already given up almost from the beginning. It seemed scripted, as if the inevitable was happening. Was it b/c the Giants felt they couldn't get hits, or b/c of something deeper???
@Rapappport partly it must have been the discouragement from game 6. part of it is bad decisions. tom goodwin for reggie sanders? part of it was that the angels just did not want to touch bonds.
thats just baseball. you win by 12 runs one game, you lose by 12 runs the next.
plus the angels bullpen was awesome. donnelly, k-rod, persival. lights out
@avalsonline2 How could the Giants lose with this lineup: Livan Hernandez vs John Lackey Giants Lineup Kenny Lofton CF Rich Aurilia SS Jeff Kent 2B Barry Bonds LF Benito Santiago C J.T. Snow 1B Reggie Sanders RF David Bell 3B Pedro Feliz DH? OIC Reggie Sanders. Like when the Indians in 1954 in Game 4 denied Feller (13-3) and others who got them there for old "newcomers".... Like, If it works, change it.
@Rapappport well, thats the thing. as i said in the vid. sanders was batting .186 in the series. i just think there were at least 5 guys on that bench that could have been better choises than goodwin. goodwin was batting .000 in 10 at bats with 6 strikeouts.
honestly, its not about loyalty. its about effectiveness. reggie was strugling. i can understand why baker did it. i just think dunston or shinjo would have been better choises
@avalsonline2 I agree. Maybe the Giants should have kept Bonds as only a pinch hitter in the series, and then only if the bases were loaded??? LOL. Well, they wudn't have walked him. At some point, you gotta pitch him a strike.
I wudda had some kind of satisfaction if the '54 Indians have won at least one of the games. No one has explained to me why the Giants were able to win all 4.
@avalsonline2 We are saying basically the same thing. Bonds, though, was notorious for walking and hitting homers. He was not a fast runner on base or outfield. At some point, he would have been replaced on base by a pinch runner. When the Giants had men on base, he should have come in as a pinch hitter. Key - make them pitch to him. It's not like taking out the best hitter - look at the other players on the team!
@Rapappport no, we are not saying the same thing. you are saying that they should have kept bonds on the bench to pinchhit and i am saying that it waould be better to have bonds get 4 at bats.
I still relive that night in 2002. We can get HALOS! All we need now is a bullpen to keep us in it!
Thedude4777 2 months ago
Dusty Baker did it to himself the night before!
Jiltedin2007 3 months ago
fuck the giants should have started schmidt on short rest
deadhardy 10 months ago
A pinch runner or pinch hitter rarely has been effective, but did help teams in some
World Series games. "Dusty Rhodes", Kirk Gibson and others attest to this big time.
Rapappport 11 months ago
@Rapappport rhodes and gibson were the exceptions, not the rules. rhodes, for all his prowess in 54, was never good enough for a full time job. gibson was hurt and was used as a last resort. bonds was healthy. had the rest of the team been able to hit the ball, bonds would have been able to capitalize
avalsonline2 11 months ago
@avalsonline2 Still, to see Gibson's homer in the WS 1988, here on yutube, is awesome!
Rapappport 11 months ago
In that last Series game, it seemed that the Giants had already given up almost from the beginning. It seemed scripted, as if the inevitable was happening. Was it b/c the Giants felt they couldn't get hits, or b/c of something deeper???
Rapappport 1 year ago
@Rapappport partly it must have been the discouragement from game 6. part of it is bad decisions. tom goodwin for reggie sanders? part of it was that the angels just did not want to touch bonds.
thats just baseball. you win by 12 runs one game, you lose by 12 runs the next.
plus the angels bullpen was awesome. donnelly, k-rod, persival. lights out
avalsonline2 1 year ago
Rapappport 1 year ago
@Rapappport well, thats the thing. as i said in the vid. sanders was batting .186 in the series. i just think there were at least 5 guys on that bench that could have been better choises than goodwin. goodwin was batting .000 in 10 at bats with 6 strikeouts.
honestly, its not about loyalty. its about effectiveness. reggie was strugling. i can understand why baker did it. i just think dunston or shinjo would have been better choises
avalsonline2 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 I agree. Maybe the Giants should have kept Bonds as only a pinch hitter in the series, and then only if the bases were loaded??? LOL. Well, they wudn't have walked him. At some point, you gotta pitch him a strike.
I wudda had some kind of satisfaction if the '54 Indians have won at least one of the games. No one has explained to me why the Giants were able to win all 4.
Rapappport 1 year ago
@Rapappport you dont take out your best hitter on the last game of the series. you get guys on base, discourage the other team to walk him.
avalsonline2 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 We are saying basically the same thing. Bonds, though, was notorious for walking and hitting homers. He was not a fast runner on base or outfield. At some point, he would have been replaced on base by a pinch runner. When the Giants had men on base, he should have come in as a pinch hitter. Key - make them pitch to him. It's not like taking out the best hitter - look at the other players on the team!
Why did the '54 Indians not use Feller (13-3)?
Rapappport 11 months ago
@Rapappport no, we are not saying the same thing. you are saying that they should have kept bonds on the bench to pinchhit and i am saying that it waould be better to have bonds get 4 at bats.
avalsonline2 7 months ago